Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.

Do not post users' personal information.

Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.

Vote based on quality, not opinion.

Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.

Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting.

Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.

Submissions must be an original source.

An article must contain significant analysis and original content--not just a few links of text among chunks of copy and pasted material. Content is considered rehosted when a publication takes the majority of their content from another website and reposts it in order to get the traffic and collect ad revenue. More Info.

Articles must be written in English

An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.

Spam is bad!

If 33% or more of your submissions are from a single website, you will be banned as a spammer. More Info.

The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

We're still not asking the right question: why is health insurance still tied to employers? The practice began during WWII as a way to circumvent wage controls (offer benefits rather than wages), but we no longer have wage controls so why do we still tie health insurance to "benefits"? What we should be doing is working to eliminate employers as health insurance providers completely (while raising wages accordingly) and letting individuals choose whatever insurance they wish to purchase.

If insurance was no longer tied to employment, you'd have free reign to find your own Insurance company, just like you can with auto insurance and whatnot.

Which means that rates will go down, because you will have options. If you don't like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, you can choose something else. You're not stuck with whatever your employer decides to offer that year, and you are free to switch to whomever you choose.

There would be nothing wrong with employers offering their own, but you would have the OPTION to pay for your own individual plan, and not have that tied to your employment.

If a business thought they could stop offering subsidized health insurance without losing employees or suffering a drop in productivity from increased morale they would have done it way before the ACA happened. I guarantee you Papa John's offers subsidized health insurance for its white collar workers.

I know the current situation sucks for many at the bottom of the economic ladder and I absolutely support expansion of Medicare and the creation of a universal basic income for all citizens. Besides just being "fair" it would also usher in a renaissance of startups when people are free to love their job to pursue a passion.

Yep. I have insurance now as a self-employed person. Before I did not. I am completely free to work on my small business without any worry of being bankrupted by unexpected illnesses or injuries. It's a feeling of empowerment I have never experienced before in my life until now.

However, we have to remember a number of states still don't have the ACA.

I'm employed with great benefits. My daughter is covered under my benefits.

My girlfriend works part-time at a local grocery chain. She's not eligible for benefits at her workplace, and an individual policy for herself will cost her approximately $90 / week.

Her part-time paycheck is about $110/week.

She's not qualified for my insurance because we're not married or involved in a Domestic Partnership, yet because I make "so much" money from my job and we live together she's not eligible for any state/federal insurance policies.

So basically, she either has to spend 85% of her weekly paycheck on insurance, or we have to get married/into a domestic partnership and then I have to cover the extra $60/paycheck I have to pay for insurance to add her, otherwise she gets fined at the end of the year.

My problem with the affordable health care act is that they just basically mandated you have insurance, instead of mandating that insurance not be tied to employers.

Why isn't she classified as your dependent? I can't see how $110/week is enough to survive on. She doesn't have to be a child or relative to be a dependent. You would save far more claiming her on your taxes than she would ever save on claiming taxes off her meager check.

Also, something doesn't sound right with her quote. Maybe you should double check that. If it's correct, then maybe she should change her legal residence to her parent's or friend's house and live with you "off the books".

I never buy into this line of reasoning. I know a company can bring all of its employees and we can pretend that this is wholesale selling, but there is nothing stopping an insurance company from offering three basic tiers to any arbitrary group, say residents of New Hampshire.

If we want to stick with the nonsense of open markets and invisible hands, then the negotiation doesnt take place between the company/HR and the insurance company of choice, it takes place between the different offers made available by the companies. The best price/service combo will win out, and something like ACA can dictate necessary minimums.

I personally dont think that the plans need to be divided by state lines. I definitely dont think that each company needs to have >100 plans per state, which is what we have now. Reduce the plans, reduce the overhead, and make this shit work for everyone buying, not just for the bosses of those selling.

But too many politicians like corporations more than people making this option politically unfeasible, and even if it did somehow come into being the Republicans would gut it so badly the next time they came to power that we might as well not have it at all.

Americans are divided on this issue into two groups, for the most part:

Some who believe government should provide health care to all in the form of single payer, and some who believe our government would make a mess of things and neither they nor employers should have a hand in our health care, which would be left for individuals to take care of via a competitive marketplace.

Nowhere do I see people claiming that our current system is the best option. Nowhere, unless they're raking in some serious cash from the status quo.

There are many errors, including "Why do we call a service that pays for 90% of medical expenses called 'insurance'?" or "Why aren't most insurance plans 'catastrophic' plans?". But the real root problem is: "Why do people consider healthcare a fundamental right?"

I agree with this 100%. I'm in the fortunate position to work for a firm that feels this very same way. I pay premium on a private plan that suits me. Same has my car insurance and every other insurance I researched and purchased. Fortunately I wasn't one of the 8-10 million holders of private health policies that the "man" determined to be inadequate. Good Doctor, good medicine prices. I'm keen to resist any change because this is what I have chosen to purchase from a reputable company.

I agree with you but I would argue that this problem is even larger with corporations having the benefits of personhood without the drawbacks. For instance, banks receive nearly interest-free loans from the federal government yet our students pay substantial interest rates on their loans. You and I can go to jail for breaking the law but try to find more than a handful of people in jail for the last financial meltdown. We read everyday about corporations using a number of tricks to get out of paying taxes on their profits, while at the same time companies like WalMart underpay their employees, requiring many to qualify for food stamps and other government provided benefits. The impact of corporations on our political system is also disproportionate, with the respective industries writing the very laws which govern them. Now they get religious protections as well. When the fuck is this going to end?

I agree with you, but you are muddying several issues. There could have been people in jail for the financial stuff, the corporate veil could have been pierced, but there was no will to punish rich friends and campaign donors.

I also disagree that something that doesnt die and cant be jailed can have all the rights as me, as it cant have the responsibilities that I have. There are two sides to being a part of society.

What we should be doing is working to eliminate employers as health insurance providers completely (while raising wages accordingly) and letting individuals choose whatever insurance they wish to purchase.

Rather, we should work to eliminate employers as health insurance providers completely, raise wages accordingly, and entirely nationalize healthcare. No one should have to go without healthcare and many countries have shown programs that work where there is no corporation involved at any level.

Hi there! Since there seems to be a bit of confusion about this case, I'm going to take a bit of time (and inspiration from /u/Unidan) and act as the excited lawyer to explain some of the finer details of this case so that at the very least people are mad for the right reasons.

(1). This decision had nothing to do with the First Amendment.

I know it's kind of weird, because everyone is talking about it in terms of "religious freedom", but it's important that this is a case of statutory interpretation, not constitutional law. Let me give some background.

The first thing you need to know is the term "strict scrutiny." It's the analysis that the courts use when a law restricts or infringes on a constitutional right. So, a law which limits free speech can still be constitutional if it meets three tests:

First, it has to be furthering a compelling government interest. Second, it has to be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Third, it has to be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

In Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, the Supreme Court held that a generally applicable law (basically, a law that applies to everyone) which happens to impede on religious practice is not held to strict scrutiny. This overturned an earlier case (Sherbert) which held that even if the law isn't meant to restrict freedom of religion, if it does, it must meet strict scrutiny to be applied to that religious group.

So, Congress decided it didn't like the result in Smith and passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which basically said "we're bringing back the Sherbert test, but as part of federal statute."

The ruling in this case was solely under the RFRA, not under any part of the First Amendment. That's good, because it means:

(2). This decision does not prevent any states from passing similar laws.

The RFRA, unlike the First Amendment, does not apply to state law. So, where this result under the First Amendment would prohibit Colorado from passing a law requiring Hobby Lobby provide these forms of birth control, this decision does not.

(3). It doesn't mean that any religious belief is going to overrule the law.

Remember that bit about strict scrutiny above? Well, what the Supreme Court here is telling us is that the RFRA applies to closely-held corporations, and that the RFRA puts us back into strict scrutiny territory.

But, while the Court did not find the government's interest in these four forms of birth control to be compelling, or that it was narrowly tailored, that is not necessarily true for any and all religious beliefs. The people saying "I'm suddenly religiously opposed to taxes and laws against insider trading" are simply misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) what was at issue here. Speaking of what was at issue here;

(4). This case was not about contraceptives generally.

We can speculate about how a case seeking to avoid paying for any contraceptives would play out, but this case was never about whether Hobby Lobby could deny contraceptives generally. It was about four specific forms of contraception that Hobby Lobby objected to as being abortifacients (basically, drugs which prevent the implantation of an already-fertilized egg).

On that note, there has been a lot of discussion about whether Hobby Lobby is correct in that belief. But for the Supreme Court to analyze the "correctness" of a belief would move us into really bad territory.

(5). So, what can I do if I'm still mad as hell and not going to take it anymore?

The simplest thing would be to lobby your state government to craft a similar contraceptive law at the state level (which would not be governed by the RFRA). A harder, but still viable option would be to agitate for the wholesale repeal of the RFRA itself. As a creature of statutory law, it's a lot easier to change than the constitution.

If you have any other questions about this case, I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability

Quick question about the case. Did Hobby Lobby reference any religious doctrine that says their religion prohibits this? It seems to me that all of the religious doctrine was written well before birth control. If they didn't reference religious doctrine then what stops people from just making things up that they find objectionable?

If they didn't reference religious doctrine then what stops people from just making things up that they find objectionable?

That's the tough part. If we restrict religious belief to "well-founded religious belief of a major religion supported by official dogma" we're going to have establishment clause problems. Courts have tended to err on the side of "it's sincere if they've been following it consistently." So, if I come to the belief that my yarmulke protects me from alien telepaths, that's sincere, but the court would take a skeptical eye if I only started "believing" when it became convenient.

I thought it's not that Hobby Lobby is investing in those companies, but that Hobby Lobby matches 401(k) contributions of their employees with the employees choosing where to spend that money, and much of where the employees have invested that money is in mutual funds that include companies manufacturing contraceptives in question? In so much as that Hobby Lobby isn't making that choice, it's just giving its employees the money to put into the 401(k) of their choice.

The real question I've got about the beliefs being followed consistently is the stuff I've read that prior to like, 2 years ago, Hobby Lobby had insurance that DID cover those contraceptive methods that they object to now, and that was before any law mandated it.

This is hilarious given that Hobby Lobby was paying for insurance which covered these contraceptives prior to the ACA. Clearly nothing more than an insincere front to attack the ACA for political reasons.

Hobby Lobby only opposed those forms of birth control which are speculated to cause the flushing of fertilized eggs. This means that their legal objection stems from their moral objection to abortion (or even potential for one). Nothing in the Bible references birth control (other than interruption).

In response to your last question, while they didn't (nor were they required to) cite religious text which opposed birth control, they specifically objected only to four methods which (at least according to Hobby Lobby's beliefs) could lead to abortions. This means it was clear to the court that they were not making up beliefs to escape payment or legal liability. The court recognized, most importantly (and not publicized at all), that there were ways for the Affordable Care Act to accomplish the kind of Female Liberty they claim to endorse without offending religious liberties in the slightest. Yet, they chose to require employers to pay for all types of birth control.

This is what stops people from making things up. This was not the least restrictive way to accomplish this interest of the Obama Administration, especially not for Christians.

Well, what the Supreme Court here is telling us is that the RFRA applies to closely-held corporations

One might get the wrong impression that it only applies to to closely held corporations. The majority opinion notes that no publicly traded corporation has ever brought an RFRA claim but leaves open the possibility that they could. They volunteer the basis upon which the court would determine what the beliefs of the corporation are:

State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflict by, for example, dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure

So while the ruling was restricted to closely held corporations (the court often narrows the applicability when it can), there is no reason to think an RFRA suit brought by a publicly traded company would fail on the same question.

there is no reason to think an RFRA suit brought by a publicly traded company would fail on the same question.

Absolutely true. Which is the real problem with the construction of the RFRA. By using the term "person" in the context of federal law (rather than constitutional law) as defined in 1 U.S.C 1, they include corporations writ large.

The Supreme Court might be able to jury-rig a kind of limitations for publicly-traded companies where there is not a consensus of religious beliefs among the shareholders, but that'd be flimsy as hell. The problem is that the Supreme Court doesn't get to look at a badly drafted law and pull a Nick Fury and say "I recognize Congress has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it."

No, but a case could be made that the law enables employers to violate the rights of employees by using coercive force to impose their religious beliefs on them. Effectively violating their first amendment rights.

It could also be viewed as a violation to anti-discrimination laws (this is the ACLU's position).

Either of these would have overridden the RFRA or even overturned it.

That the court decided to enforce the position of the religious right is more an indication of personal bias than calling balls and strikes.

There's also a not-unreasonable argument to be made that the RFRA is an establishment clause violation under the Lemon test or must be extended to include atheist moral beliefs. And with the right test case, I'd take that and run with it.

But if that's not the case in front of the Court, it can't issue advisory opinions about it.

a case could be made that the law enables employers to violate the rights of employees by using coercive force to impose their religious beliefs on them. Effectively violating their first amendment rights.

That's a tenuous argument at best. You could search ever Supreme Court case in the history of the country and not find support for the idea that "me not paying for something" denies you the right to have that thing.

Protecting the free exercise of religious practice is not the same as advancing it;

But protecting it at the expense of another's different belief, or non-belief, arguably is an Establishment Clause violation, and Ginsburg argues in her dissent that this is one of those times where the christianist right is punching non-believers in the face with their freedom fists.

huh. I can appreciate that aspect, that you (the corporate entity) may not directly prevent me (a random individual) from acquiring said desired accommodation. Except for the small fact that the minimum wage is being debated and successfully argued needs to be raised, and medical provisions that are included in that raise should be provided to ALL citizens. If at the moment not coherently provisioned differently to specifically protect these new allotted rights from exploitation of special interests. As I best understand it, or how it should possibly be best understood is that medical care is different but not unequal to wages in the same way an individual should expect equal rights to work, not be discriminated against, and a reasonable expectation to physical safety, and disclosure to impactful events.

My argument for this is: Corporations don't have the right to know how their employees choose to use their medical insurance, or as I like to term it fair compensation for a fair day's work. It should not be disclosed, period. How is it not an invasion of medical privacy? In the same way corporate tax use is not specifically disclosed to the incorporated it is collected from. I have a general idea, as a private citizen, and a certain say how my tax money is used, but I don't get a receipt of how exactly my specific tax dollars are used in what social project, if any. The moment I have the right as a private citizen to that receipt, is the moment I might be willing to listen to what a corporation has a right to know how fair compensation is used by it's employees.

It seems like BolshevikMuppet's analogy is flawed, because employees having to pay for something that would normally be covered under their health plan is effectively the same as a cut in their salary.

And this supposedly being over Hobby Lobby's religious sensibilities, but the same company had no problem covering contraceptives in the past, before it became a politically expedient issue.

It would seem like if they said that their employees couldn't USE birth control because of the owners religious beliefs, that would be a huge problem and I'd suspect would play out very differently. I don't see coercive force imposing a religious belief here since it's not dictating what the employees can do, just that the company isn't paying for it.

My understanding is that there are quite a few cases at the lower court levels right now that could significantly expand the scope of the religious freedom exemption, and that given the precedent in this case it seems likely that decisions would go in that favor.

I have not seen any cases on this subject that have even gone to the district court level while the Hobby Lobby case was pending. It could be that I'm just not paying enough attention to the district courts, though. Do you happen to know any cases in particular I should look at?

None in particular other than the little sisters case. I've heard it mentioned that there are others making their way through the lower courts and I was actually hoping you might be more knowledgable on specifics. It's possible that what I've heard is hyperbole that I'm sympathetic to.

There is still reason to slightly freak out from the RFRA, because , as Justice Ginsburg mentioned in her dissent, this opens the door to a lot of "religious objection"-style objections for other parts of healthcare coverage , like blood transfusion, as well as some other laws, if the whole "more reasonable alternative" argument ends up applying.

I don't think it's a reason to slightly freak out over the RFRA. It's either one of the crazies statutes I've ever run into, or it was really poorly written. Either way it's bad policy.

But the Court isn't (and shouldn't be) in the business of going all Nick Fury and saying "we recognize the Congress has made a statute, but given that it's a stupid-assed statute, we've elected to ignore it."

The people saying "I'm suddenly religiously opposed to taxes and laws against insider trading" are simply misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) what was at issue here. Speaking of what was at issue here;

That's all fine, but there are established religions that do have odd practices.

What if Bob Marley was the owner and employer. His Rastafarian religion would say that things like a mastectomy is a sin and therefore can not be covered by any health care his company provides.

People of the Christian science faith believe in virtually no medical intervention at all.

Yes, these examples will probably go down in court, but before there was a blanket rule that said if you're a for profit company you can't claim religious rights. Now each case must be scrutinized on an individual basis and some are likely to make it through.

What if my problem with the ruling is that it says a corporation can have beliefs in the first place? That the owners of Hobby Lobby are not themselves Hobby Lobby?

THAT is the main objection. If the owner of Hobby Lobby wants to be a sole proprietorship and not be incorporated, then I have no problem with them saying what kind of insurance they'll pay for. The owner's legal protection as a corporation separates them and their beliefs from the business.

What if my problem with the ruling is that it says a corporation can have beliefs in the first place? That the owners of Hobby Lobby are not themselves Hobby Lobby?

Then your problem is with the existence of the RFRA (or at least the slapdash way it was drafted), not with the ruling itself. It'd be like saying your objection to a ruling regarding the Federal Arbitration Act is that you don't like what the Federal Arbitration Act says.

And I don't like the RFRA either (I don't like it at all, but I especially don't like the part where because of its wording it applies to corporations), but you don't shoot a duck for quacking. The Supreme Court doesn't get to go all Nick Fury and say "I recognize that Congress has made a statute, but given that it's a stupid-assed statute, we have elected to ignore it."

That really would be legislating from the bench, and it'd be a huge separation of powers problem.

The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA. Pp. 39–40.

Turning to page 40, we find:

We find it unnecessary to adjudicate [the issue of whether or not guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA]. We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA, and we will proceed to consider the final prong of the RFRA test, whether HHS has shown that the contraceptive mandate is "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest".

The short answer is because the RFRA is either one of the craziest pieces of legislation I've ever encountered, or is just one of the most poorly written ones.

Corporations are creatures of statute, and Congress gets to define what statutes apply to them in what way. So, here's how it went down:

1 U.S.C 1 defines "person" and "people" as including corporations. This makes sense, since we want the same Clean Air Act to apply to corporations as to natural persons. But the RFRA extends religious protections to all persons.

My guess is that it's because the RFRA was written in a pretty slapdash way and in a fit of pique, but it is what it is. So, federal law defines a religious protection that by definition applies to corporations. And right or wrong, it is a basic doctrine of statutory interpretation that Congress meant what it said, and said what it meant.

Which means that it has to be possible for a corporation to have a religious belief which could be infringed on. And as insane as that sounds, it's fully within Congress's power to say that.

Yes, and some of it has already been filled in by the pre-Employment Division v. Smith cases (telling us under what circumstances the government can meet strict scrutiny in these kinds of cases) but the exact contours are going to need to be resolved by more cases.

It's very much the same way that we've decided the limits of when the government can infringe on any constitutional rights (since the RFRA creates a quasi-strict-scrutiny standard for these cases). The government does something, someone sues/defends themselves from government action, it goes up on appeal, and it either meets strict scrutiny or it doesn't.

I'm curious, how does this figure if Hobby Lobby is not paying 100% of the insurance premium?

I don't know if they do or not, but I personally think that if they're paying for 100% of the premiums, the employees (and by extension, everybody else) have nothing to complain about.

I think however that if the employee is paying any portion of their premium, Hobby Lobby's interest in the matter is moot. Why should the corporation get to pick and choose what health care services below the minimum standard required by law the employee has available to them when the employee is paying for those services and may not necessarily hold the same religious views as the corporation? It seems that if the corporation's view doesn't truck with the views of their employees, and they don't like it, they can simply elect under the law to pay the tax penalty for not offering coverage. Why does the religious view of the corporation have more sway than that of the other party who is also paying for the service?

Unfortunately, the entire case was built on bunk science (that some of the BCs approved by ACA were "abortificents", which they are not)

Had Hobby Lobby not convinced the judges that their beliefs were more "true" than the science behind these forms of BC, this case never would have even gotten to the point of talking about the 1st Amendment or the RFRA.

If there's one thing to be angry at regarding this case, it's that belief won over science, and the anti-intellectual movement that is killing the Republican party is alive and well.

This is my qualm as well. That we let an unarguably scientific fact be trumped by a religious misbelief. During this whole proceeding, did HL ever bear the onus of proving these forms of contraception result in abortion, particularly as unfertilized eggs fail to implant naturally without drug interference all the time through normal cycles in the body, it's not abortion, it's called having a period. (edit for typo)

Alito did nothing more than prove that he gives preference to some religious beliefs and not to others. He made a specific point that this opinion was not to be interpreted as giving corporations the right to deny other forms of medication or procedures, which specifically coddles the religious rights of Hobby Lobby but ignores the rights of Jehovah's Witness (don't believe in blood transfusions) or Scientologists (who don't believe in anti-depressants). The religious rights of Hobby Lobby are coddled, but fuck the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Scientologists or any other not so mainstream religious belief.

The court only rules on the facts presented in this particular case. By reserving judgment on other, hypothetical religious objections (i.e. blood transfusions) NOT properly before the court, he is not "coddling" certain religious beliefs over others, but merely constraining his decision to the facts before him. Courts do this all the time, and it is good that they do.

Who cares if these justices are Catholic and male? Except feminists, I mean, but they are unreasonably upset at everything. Would the decision be any more tolerable if Jewish women imposed it?

Posts like these with sensational titles get us nowhere - just makes me take feminists less seriously. This issue should be an easy one to get us all to rally around feminist causes but their idiocy just does the opposite.

Hard to take an article on human rights serious that begins with a quote that says popular vote and democracy shouldn't be the key decision maker in legislation. Who would you have make those decisions? Just the people you agree with?

The implicit assumption in that quote seems to be that had those same five justices been women, or something other than Catholic, (Jewish, maybe?) they would have been with the other four justices who are, well, women or (as it happens) Jewish (or both).

If the claim is made that the five justices in the majority were influenced in their decision by their religious background--or by their gender--than the same charge could be leveled at the four justices in the dissent. So no one reached their decision by fairly and objectively interpreting the law.

The charge, or the claim, in other words, is either laughable or it's self-defeating. Either all the justices voted an ideology or none of them did. But to decide, on the basis of one's preferred outcome, that an outcome with which one disagrees must have been arrived at by preferencing ideology over the law, without at the same time turning the mirror back on one's self, is a fundamentally irrational approach. (And what would Dan Barker say?)

And since when is it a "fundamental right" to have one's employer pay for one's abortion. Rather, to force someone to engage in an activity with which one has a conscience-based objection is the real evisceration of fundamental rights. Or have we decided that the Amish and Peaceniks ought to be forced to kill other men at the whim of the civil authorities? And if so, what's to become of the right to be "free from religion"?

On top of all that Anthony Kennedy may be conservative but I wouldn't say "ultra-conservative." He's the swing vote. He sides with the liberals of the court somewhat often and has actually attracted criticism from the right for being disloyal.

My company and I negotiated over a benefits package when I took the job. Maybe the company didn't want to offer birth control as part of the benefits package. Who cares why, they just didn't want to offer it. I'm allowed to negotiate or walk away. What's the problem?

It's hilarious that /u/User-1234 is suggesting that a prospective retail worker at a chain of craft stores has the latitude to negotiate a benefits package. That wouldn't have flown back in early 2008 let alone now.

The example of cancer medication was brought up before. Because of how it's worded it's easy for a crafty lawyer to make it work without even being discrimination. So much for healthcare when the packages offered at most jobs negate expensive things. It doesn't sound like the company needs to justify why they don't want to offer something (haven't read anything where people need to show their scripture or bring in a priest for an interpretation of their holy books). "You know cancer is expensive. What if we only allow the cheap procedures and bury it in a bunch of legal text?" "Good idea. Even the most dedicated person won't find the loophole until it's too late."

That's one of my fears. I think people already get confused enough when they're job searching and reviewing benefits. The thought something could be hidden in a complex benefit plan that the insurance company and CEO setup for their best interests in frightening. (I trust my boss, but I'm not sure everyone can say that. I mean most people applying to jobs don't know if their boss is honest or is secretly evil).

To quote George Carlin "Why, why, why, why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't wanna fuck in the first place? Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked. Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you reach military age. Then they think you're just fine. Just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life... pro-life... These people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it? They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state. "

I'm very confused. I have read the constitution (a few times), and I have yet to see anywhere that contraception is guaranteed to anyone. Hobby Lobby has already approved 16 out of the 20 required contraceptives for the HHS mandate, only rejecting those that prevent the development of a fertilized egg. Christians believe that life begins at conception, so providing these drugs is considered material cooperation in infanticide. Leaving aside whether or not abortion is moral, how can our government force religious people to violate their morals or pay fines that would result in bankruptcy?

[Serious]Why is birth controll even supposed to be covered by the insurance? Why are companies supposed to pay for that? We don't have that in Europe afaik... Can't people get their own birth control pills and the likes?

Fundamental right.... If you agree that anything but Life, Liberty and owning your own property is a Fundamental right you don't understand politics at all. Your body is your own property, you chose what you do with it. If you chose not to have children then you should be the one who has responsibility for that part of your property. If my lawn dies because I didn't take care of it it's my fault. If my boat sinks because I didn't fix the holes it's my fault. I shouldn't expect my employer to pay for any of this. My property, which includes my person, is my responsibility. Now if I'm a prostitute and my employer doesn't pay for contraceptives then you have a legit complaint. But your not being paid to have sex, your employer should not have to pay for what you do outside of work. If you drink too much your employer shouldn't have to pay for you DUI, car insurance, or alcohol. This is a choice you make with your property. Your body is your property, no one else should have any responsibility over it. Think about that for a second.

Your work has to pay you if your hurt on the job, but they don't have to pay you if you did something stupid. If you tried to lift a 2 ton box and hurt your back because you didn't use proper equipment they don't have to pay you shit. You're responsible to not be stupid with your property in the workplace. If you want to have sex that's fine, but don't expect to have someone else pay to keep you from having children. That's your choice. Not your works.

It's not a right but it is a law. This new SCOTUS ruling gives religions the right to ignore certain laws. The lesson here seems to be that if you don't want to follow certain laws the best way to do it is to join or start your own religion.

Because we're supposed to view employment as a master/slave relationship. Not a mutually beneficial economic compact. Be grateful for the opportunity to sacrifice the best years of your life to make someone else rich.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, if you were opposed to abortion, to the point that you believed it was actual, physical murder, would you expect to pay for someone else to have one, knowing they could still purchase the service themselves?

But that's not really what's happening, is it? The employers weren't mandated to throw out abortions and contraceptives like candy, they were mandated to include certain types of plans and they have the belief that they can treat their business as an individual with morals so they get to select the marketplace from which their employees can receive benefits.

It's more like, if the law said your employer had to provide membership to a big-box chain and you really like ribs, but your employer won't get you a Costco membership because your employer is Jewish and Costco sells pork products but Box Chain B doesn't. They make you go to Box Chain B instead, but "you can still pay out of pocket for Costco if you want to"...why should you have to? Why does your employer get to decide what kind of food you eat when you're not in the office?

It's more like, if the law said your employer had to provide membership to a big-box chain and you really like ribs, but your employer won't get you a Costco membership because your employer is Jewish and Costco sells pork products but Box Chain B doesn't. They make you go to Box Chain B instead, but "you can still pay out of pocket for Costco if you want to"...why should you have to? Why does your employer get to decide what kind of food you eat when you're not in the office?

And yet, everyone would still be missing the point. We'd all argue about whether or not access to employer-funded ribs is some fundamental right. No one would be asking the question, "why is my employer buying me a membership to Costco or Sam's Club in the first place?"

Actually most forms of birth control in the US are available by prescription only, some require an ID check and others are surgically implanted. It's not as easy as simply going to the drug store and picking it up.

My IUD is awesome, but having it inserted wasn't exactly a walk in the park. I had a vasovagal response and they had to call my fiancé and have him come fetch me because I couldn't even sit up on my own and they didn't want me driving with my blood pressure all wonky. Plus the part where I was bleeding for three months straight afterward... Despite that, I'd say it was still worth it. Haven't had any pregnancy scares since and the side effects I had from other forms of hormonal birth control are completely gone.

Ah, you mean forms that are less effective and aren't a valid option for all people. FYI, progestogen, as in the hormone, is usually taken through prescription pills. Plan B can be bought over the counter, but I believe there are still some forms that are rescrption.

Even if they can be bought, if you're working at a minimum wage job that offers crap benefits that are even crappier because of their "religious values," then there's a good chance you can't always easily afford BC.

Give me a break, nobody is being denied a damn thing, this is just a hissy fit temper tantrum because liberals wanted to put those Christians in their place. Nobody is denying anyone access to contraception, hobby lobby is still covering other forms of contraception beside plan b, and calling it a fundamental right is the biggest load of sensationalist crap I've ever heard. What about their fundamental right to not support something they deeply disagree with, just so your cheap ass doesn't have to buy your own morning after pill? Nobody is stopping you from buying your own contraception. Nobody.

This is exactly it. This has been culture wars by proxy from the beginning. It's just a chance for secular type people to confront organized religion, and I'll admit that I've thought about it in those terms sometimes.

"Ask your Corporate Masters if birth control is right for you. Side Effects may include: unplanned pregnancy without access to abortion services while your employer continues to pay you the legally mandated Minimum Wage while simultaneously denying Maternity Leave and treating pregnancy as a career-ending illness. Remember, your employer IS NOT A DOCTOR but has been granted the right to act as one by SCOTUS. Four legs good, two legs better; all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. purple monkey dishwasher"

ROFL! "Birth control may cause loss of employment, lack of career advancement. You may experience stock market crashes as religious fundamentalists demand more privately held companies to run their lives..."

I'm going to just hazard a guess that the long history of employer-subsidized healthcare has created an environment in which insurance companies know they have you by the gonads when you're buying individually.

True, but then Comstock laws were passed, which essentially made it illegal to distribute information about diaphragms (and the US government could legally stop distribution of the diaphragms themselves). Margaret Sanger challenged Comstock regarding contraceptive information (not even the devices themselves) in 1918, and it was determined that the information about disease prevention was important enough. However, advertising contraceptives as a form of birth control was still illegal. Congress did not remove the language in the law concerning contraceptives until 1971.

So, sure, diaphragms have been around since the 1880s, but it was illegal to talk about them as a method of birth control and the US government could legally interfere with women getting them. So I would say the 1970s were very much a big deal when it comes to women being able to control their reproductive health.

And this is a point that needs stressing -- if we expect women to be something other than short-lived brood mares (HINT: we do, because educated women who can work outside the home and stretch that disposable income dollar by being an income generator instead of an income drain is the sort of thing that makes economies go "Vroom"), birth control is kinda necessary for that.

What the hell are these "fundamental rights" that you speak of? There is no right to birth control. Because workers are free to work wherever they want, it is hard to say that any rights of theirs are being violated. If you work for a business that has practices that you object to, then work somewhere else. You can't expect the company to compromise their beliefs just because their beliefs conflict with yours.

I am not in support of their decision and I think women should receive contraceptives as part of their health insurance.

But I think the term "fundamental rights" is reaching. This isn't a fundamental human right. It's the right thing to do, and as a society we should strive to do more for our citizens. But it's not a "fundamental right". Fundamental rights are equal opportunities, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, personal safety, etc. But it's not paid vacations, paid contraceptives, etc.

Again these are things that we should be doing, but they aren't basic fundamental rights. That is a stretch. Ultimately, I think it's in the hands of Hobby Lobby employees and customers. Tell your employer this is important to you, potential applicants shouldn't work there, and if it's important to you, don't shop there. If the response is significant, then Hobby Lobby will feel the pain in their pocket book.

And once again the American public gets fooled into thinking our government is doing something for them. When will we take these matters into our own hands? Don't like what they're doing? STOP SHOPPING THERE. STOP WORKING THERE.

It's up to the citizens of the G-D US OF A (extra emphasis for Independence Day) to make a stand and show their beliefs with their actions.

I'm also tired of people saying "it's my right to get this from my employer". No. It's not. Your employer pays for your insurance so they have a right to do whatever they want. It is YOUR right to make your own choices - including where you choose to work.

I don't think the author knows what the meaning of "fundamental rights" is.

And let's not act like we're living in Saudi Arabia. Women still have more than enough access to birth control. This isn't a theocracy. This isn't state sponsored religion. This isn't government telling you what to do with your body. All this says is that an employer doesn't have to provide it for you. So let's everyone take a chill pill -- they're not that expensive and you can find them at any walk-in pharmacy.

There's been a large backlash against this lawsuit since it was brought up by Hobby Lobby. Do you live in this country or have you talked to any Americans about it? Because if your only source is Reddit you're seeing about 95% of Americans pissed about it.

Here's a thought: buy your own birth control. Nobody took anyone's rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby doesn't have to purchase abortion pills that conflict with their religious beliefs. It's not freedom FROM religion, it's freedom OF religion. It's also freedom to work where you choose and Hobby Lobby has made no secret of being a privately held company owned by Christians. They are practicing their Constitutional right of Freedom of Religion. Nobody raises hell and wants them to buy condoms. Men still have to buy their own condoms and we don't expect our employers to buy them for us.

I have some bad news for you: Your tax money is being used for all kinds of things that you probably morally disagree with but that are supported by the laws that were passed by Congress and signed by the president.